How to respond to classical theists who dodge Open Theism arguments

[Clete]

If someone is incapable of admitting that those verses show God changing His mind, he either hasn't read the passages cited, or he's lying to himself.

Such passages clearly show God changing His mind, His followers believing He can change His mind, and even acting towards that option, and God even getting tired of changing His mind!

It's utter foolishness to deny what scripture clearly demonstrates just so one can hold onto his precious doctrine.

It's their motive that I don't understand! Why even bother being a Christian in the first place if you're just going to ignore what God's word plainly says all over the place? And of all the weird things to get stuck on! What's the big deal if God changes His mind? (I know - immutability and all that.) I mean, it's not like we're suggesting a doctrine that condones child sex trafficking or anything else that is even remotely immoral but people react to the idea that God can change His mind as if it means He's no longer real; that He's been turned into Thanos or something. I just don't get it.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It's their motive that I don't understand! Why even bother being a Christian in the first place if you're just going to ignore what God's word plainly says all over the place? And of all the weird things to get stuck on! What's the big deal if God changes His mind? (I know - immutability and all that.) I mean, it's not like we're suggesting a doctrine that condones child sex trafficking or anything else that is even remotely immoral but people react to the idea that God can change His mind as if it means He's no longer real; that He's been turned into Thanos or something. I just don't get it.

I don't get it either.

It honestly seems like a humility problem.

 

[JudgeRightly]

@Lon you're still on ignore, but you need to watch this.

 

[Derf]

These apply specifically in the accusation that I don't quote scripture often.

Yes, but I don't see how they apply. Just quoting a verse about scripture does little to help me understand you position.

So far in thread I've been accused of not quoting scripture, not being honest, etc. I used to think I only had one accuser

I apologize for a more harshly worded post than I intended, though perhaps you caught the gist better. I guess I don't get the "one accuser" comment. Anyone who writes something trying to refute a post of yours would be an accuser, and I've seen you get into tussles with several.

My point was that when I've talked about open theism verses, you say something like, "What matters is what God wants," or something similar. That merely avoids the question, and is offputting for any real dialog.

Is it possible that someone is so vested in their own theology that they'd call any friction on such terms?

Do the terms bother you? Should they bother you? If true, then yes, they should. If false, then why does your opponent (accuser?) think they are true? Perhaps I said some things in the heat of the debate, but if you are recognizing a severe disconnect, would you be willing to discuss it further?

I'll be taking time off from TOL for a bit and simply let my posts stand on their own merit. I don't believe accusation good for discussion, as it means other's are doubling down instead of actually considering whether their view is biblical and Christ-honoring.

I thought you said it didn't apply? Might see you in a month or two. Take care. -Lon Will keep you all and these matters in prayer.

Thank you (seriously). I hope to converse with you again soon.
Derf

 

[Bladerunner]

Not true. We regularly quote scripture that give explanation for the ideas that God changes His mind, in which case, the future wasn't settled before He changed His mind each time.

Hypothetical: God sees into 1,000 futures. He decides on future 765. This future includes a small change that He made way back in 1995. Because He had already seen all the possibilities that would happen before and after He changed His mind in this 765 future, would not the "future be settled"?

I see it all the time, Man placing their abilities above that of GOD. For if one molecule in the universe is outside of His purview, then He is not GOD!

 

[JudgeRightly]

Hypothetical: God sees into 1,000 futures. He decides on future 765. This future includes a small change that He made way back in 1995. Because He had already seen all the possibilities that would happen before and after He changed His mind in this 765 future, would not the "future be settled"?

The answer is that this isn't how reality works.

I see it all the time, Man placing their abilities above that of GOD. For if one molecule in the universe is outside of His purview, then He is not GOD!

When did God decide to give up His freedom?

Do you not think God is capable of creating free moral agents, capable of going against His will?

 

[Clete]

For if one molecule in the universe is outside of His purview, then He is not GOD!

By who's definition?

By who's definition of "outside"?
By who's definition of "purview"?
By who's definition of "God"?

Do you even care? Do such questions ever touch your mind at all?

 

[Derf]

Hypothetical: God sees into 1,000 futures. He decides on future 765. This future includes a small change that He made way back in 1995. Because He had already seen all the possibilities that would happen before and after He changed His mind in this 765 future, would not the "future be settled"?

In other words, God, seeing all the possibilities before He created the universe, prearranged everything that was going to happen? This is standard Calvinism. The problem is that it doesn't square with scripture. Go back to the Hezekiah scenario, where God gave two future possibilities of opposite outcomes within about 15 minutes. If God had already seen the possibilities and knew the final result, then one of those prophecies was a lie. But if God can change His mind based on the unforeseen actions of men like Hezekiah, then the first prophecy was true when He gave it to Isaiah, and the second, opposite outcome prophecy was equally true when He gave it--because He changed His mind about when Hezekiah would die.

If, however, God looked at both possibilities before the world began and knew which way He (God) would decide, then He not only engineered a lie into the future, but also engineered it to make it look like He had changed His mind, and He was merely following the predetermined course for Himself. He had lost any suggestion that He was free to let Hezekiah die if He wanted to. This is the problem Open Theists have with settled view scenarios.

I see it all the time, Man placing their abilities above that of GOD. For if one molecule in the universe is outside of His purview, then He is not GOD!

You sound like @Lon. He put the whole earth under man's dominion in the Garden. Don't you think man then could change the direction of a few molecules on that earth in a way that God would not approve? For instance, the molecules of the tree of knowledge of good and evil were not supposed to go down the throats of Adam and Eve. But they did. At that time, there were molecules doing something outside of God's will (not sure if that's the same as "purview").